Skip to main content

About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN2 146
LANGUAGE
English 146
Search Results 88 to 145 of about 146 (some duplicates have been removed)
's afghanistan farm, and that's where they practiced how to possibly assassinate him without collateral damage. this is before 9/11, but at the end of the experiment, the state department got involved, and there was lots of legalities about assassinating someone, so they decided not to do it. >> how could area 51 secrets be kept from american presidents? >> that's a very tricky and uncomfortable question certainly for this journalist, but in the very beginning of the book i explain to you that something that i found really pretty shocking when i learned it in researching this book that the atomic energy commission actually has a system of secret keeping that runs parallel to the president's system of secret keeping which is the national security system. that is not the way the constitution was written, but it is what the atomic energy act of 1946 allowed, so when the charter was written right after world war ii for the atomic energy commission, they created the system of secret keeping which the slang for it is called born classified. scholars who looked into this secret keeping system say tha
after another. >> host: and two wars. >> guest: and two wars, exactly, iraq and afghanistan. and the velocity of the events and decisions just was so amazing, there really was no breather. and if you look back on it in that context, i mean, it really was a remarkable time for him to take over. and a lot of people asked me, what is it like to interview president obama? what is he like in person? well, he's very methodical. he's very disciplined. the qualities you see in public you see in private when you interview him. i've interviewed five presidents now. i've covered five presidents it's interesting that every other one of the other four there will be some chitchat. there will be a little sort of social moment there in the beginning. i walked into the oval office and president obama said, i've been thoroughly briefed, fire your questions away. and that was it. we went right to the issuing and that's the way he is. >> host: so no -- >> guest: how is your son, your daughter, no. and some people are a little taken aback by that because they think that maybe he should be a litt
'm not a warmonger i don't want another war. we are already tied up in iraq, afghanistan and for some reason libya. but the only way to stop iran is with clear military force. sanctions are great but at the end of the day they are not going to work. at the end of the day iranian regime is motivated by, again, an ideology. it's a messianic ideology. they truly believe and they will shape policy around this, the iranian government truly believe that they can punish in the end times. >> host: this would be the 12th? >> guest: that goes by various names. he is the islamist must live. this all sounds crazy i know but they really believe this. the likes of ahmadinejad. they believe that if they strike out against israel, if they acquire nuclear weapons, if there's a ton of great global chaos and a people which are seeing right now with this arab spring, they believe that can hasten the return of the islamist messiah who believed lead them to victory over israel and the west. so acquiring nuclear weapons is part of that divine plan. nothing will deter them or dissuade them from this goal. they believe it
territories or in afghanistan. and there's the mother apology hattie. he wrote the first book on global jihad. what the names of global jihad ways. and now it's also kind of interesting to me because there have been many, many books about 10 minutes writing writings and biographies and everything. but none of them mentioned margaret marcus amerian jameel. none of them talk about him as a father or it has been for a brother or son. marion's letters were all about his household and the way it was run. there seemed to be of benefit instead of looking at this man is this powerful political leader, which is how the academic scholars have written about him was to look at the politics of his household, which were much more complicated and unexpected than you would as soon, given his writings. i mean, miriam would be upset because his wife didn't always coming in now, wasn't always an instant purdah. she would say, why didn't you wear your veil to meet her brother and not quite she said, doesn't your husband get upset at that? she said you know, my husband is such a saint. he is so much patience for
the jihads are organized and sent off to fight either in the northwest territories or in afghanistan, so there's sort of the mother of jihad. he wrote sort of the first book on global jihad. he was the first to articulate what the aims of global jihad was, and that was also interesting to me because there have been many, many books about him and his writings and biographies, but none of them, none of them mentioned margaret markus and mary. none of them talk about him as a father or husband or brother or a son, and the letters were all about his household and the way it was run and in that there seems to be a benefit instead of looking at this man as a powerful islamic political leader was to look at the politics of his household which were much more complicated and unexpected than you would assume, you know, given his writings, you know, she would be upset because his wife wasn't always in strict -- why didn't you, you know, wear your, you know, vail when you went out to meet your brother-in-law. she said, oh, you know, doesn't your husband get upset at that? she said, oh, you know, my
benefits to veterans or paychecks for the men and women wearing our country's uniform in afghanistan and iraq. i want to be clear. a default will injure america's reputation throughout the world. it will weaken faith in the world's most respected financial power, leaving our country's financial leadership in doubt. simply put, defaulting on the debt could trigger an economic collapse of historic proportion. that's why i plead with our republican colleagues, join us without delay in adopting majority leader reid's plan. senator reid's plan will provide certainty for middle-class americans and to the markets because it will provide stability, that's what we need right now through 2013. mr. president, this plan isn't perfect. in fact, including me, believe it should include revenues. it doesn't but that's why it's called a compromise. and after we adopt this plan and step back from the brink, we need to work on a balanced approach to get our country back on sound economic footing, and it means asking the wealthiest among to us pay their fair share. i was one of those who was very fortun
have had their fill of catastrophe and near catastrophe. recently in afghanistan, admiral mullen, chairman of our joint chiefs, was asked by troops if they'll be paid next month. his answer was, "i honestly can't answer that question." admiral mullen had to tell the troops, "i'd like to give you a better answer than that right now. i just honestly don't know." mr. president, it is inconceivable to me that we will leave our troops in limbo by driving our country over the cliff of default. our nation's economic life is in peril. i don't remember ever in the 32 years that i've been here is our nation more in need of deliberation, statesmanship and compromise. "the new york times" columnist david brooks, who is a conservative columnist, recently wrote that too many republicans seem to have joined a movement -- his word -- in which -- quote -- "the members do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter what the terms." close quote. i hope that some of our republican colleagues will prove mr. brooks wrong on this matter because of its huge significance. the time for ignoring hard tru
billion in iraq and afghanistan to train the security forces, less than $10 billion to retrain our work force for the jobs of the future. well, mr. president, i see others have come on the floor. i'll wrap this up. deficit reduction is important. i'm not saying it isn't. but it is not the single-most important thing right now. the single-most important thing is to put people back to work. that will, as senator wyden said earlier, start to create the demand. it will spur more private investment as the federal government begins to invest in the future of this country. that's where we ought to be focusing on. once we get the wheels going again, once we get people back to work and the economy start to to -- starts to grow, that's when we start to reduce the deficit. to just focus on deficit reduction right now to the exclusion of putting people back to work reminds me of when doctors used to put leaches on people who were ill. it only made them more ill because it drained more blood out of their system. and most times proved fatal, as it did to our first president, george washington. our ur
of iraq and afghanistan. those costs are coming down. the president had projected they would come down to $50 billion soon and would stay at that the rest of the year, which would mean $1 trillion less spending. remember, we're going to increase debt by $9 trillion to $13 trillion, but $1 trillion would have been the war. by reducing the war costs down, you save a trillion dollars. but that was already in the books. that's already estimated. and so how did they do it? well, they came in and they put in a bill that mandated it to come down because, oddly enough, the congressional budget office doesn't assume the war costs will come down. the congressional budget office assumes that it will stay up and we'll spend this trillion dollars more on the war, when there's no intent to do that. president bush wouldn't have spent that much money. and, therefore, they put it in the legislation and require it to come down to these numbers, and all of a sudden c.b.o. scores a trillion dollars extra savings. well, any change in spending projections or reality at all, speaker boehner didn't count his
, not talking about wars in iraq and afghanistan, not talking about natural disasters, disease, epidemics, not famine. i'm talking about our national debt. our national debt is the threat. it is the great e threa greatesr national security. i'll tell you this isn't a problem for one party, the other party, it is a problem for all of us as americans. now, i'm not the only one that's saying it. actually, the chairman of the -- of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, has said the most significant threat, the most significant threat to our nation's security is our debt. let me repeat, the most significant threat to our national security is the debt. you may notice, mr. president, that admiral mullen makes no mention at all of the debt ceiling. the presiding officer: would the senator from wyoming cease for a minute. could we have order, please. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming may continue. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, as i was saying, you will note that admiral mullen makes -- makes no mention at all
another. >> host: two wars. >> guest: exactly. iraq and afghanistan. the velocity of the events and decisions were so amazing. there really was no breather. and if you look back on it in that context, it was an remarkable time for him to take over. and a lot of people asked me what is it like to interview president obama. what is he like in person? well, he's very methodical, disciplined, the qualities that you see in public, you see in private when you interview him. i've interviewed five presidents now, i've covered five presidents. it's interesting that every other one of the other four there would be some chitchat, a little social moment there in the beginning. i walked into the oval office, president obama say i've been thoroughly briefed. fire your questions away. that's it. we went right to the issues. that's the way he is. >> host: no ice breakers. >> guest: how's your son, your daughter? no. some people are a little taken back by that. they think maybe he should be outgoing or friendly. he's not a back slapping kind of leader. a lot of people like the steadiness they se
to pakistani scholars. i am pleased to see maybe one of those scholars re-ask con whose new book on afghanistan was written while he was a scholar is with us today. rh a program has undertaken an extensive review of the economics assistance program and we will roll out the conclusions of that later this year. the house foreign affairs committee yesterday, sand that means walled off running for economic assistance and military assistance to pakistan until the president certifies that the area has adequate cooperation on counterterrorism. that is just one house committee but that is a move that some feel including me may go in the wrong direction, economic assistance i would argue is absolutely crucial. president musharraf's speech this morning comes in a timely moment. relations between our two countries are more strained today than at any time in the past 10 years. eight of our countries needs the other for the achievement of important strategic object this. yet most of the public discussion of the bilateral relationship focuses on our divisions and are as agreements. perhaps a day's session wi
that it needs that is a small percentage for wasting infrastructure in afghanistan. the notion that the cftc that the 80 or $90 billion more that we need can't be done because of the deficit that people spent in $147 billion so we can keep subsidizing american farmers is nonsense. similarly with the fcc they want to turn in. they will bring in more money to the system than it will be given to run it. that's one effect. in fact, what you have running here is a catch 22. first, deny the fcc and cftc adequate funding. they in turn are not able to deal with the rulemaking requirements that they have. then because we haven't been able to move as quickly, that's something they have imposed. obviously, you want the fcc and cftc to have smart people and information technology. i have to say i do not see it coming from the financial institutions. many of them recognize while you may not like the rules, if you've got the rules, you want them well run. this is coming from the republican party who just believe despite all of the evidence to the contrary that an unregulated free market works. you saw thi
to go to for jihadists and afghanistan, iran, excuse me, afghanistan, iraq, pakistan or yemen but as many as two dozen muslim americans and al-shabaab with many cases trained by al qaeda leaders remain unaccounted for. the committee has found that all chabad related federal prosecutions for funding, recruiting and attempting to join al-shabaab are the largest number and most significant upward trend in the terror cases filed for the justice department over the past two years. least 38 cases have been unsealed since 2009. minnesota, ohio, california, new jersey, new york, illinois, alabama, virginia and texas three al-shabaab is recruiting inside american mosques and disalle communities like minneapolis and san diego. according to the justice department. this month and also of recruiter pleaded guilty to a recording a large group of muslims from minneapolis at mosques and without any known protest moscow's leaders. a top also leader in somalia supervised this recruiting. one minnesota recruited was a suicide bomber whose 2008 attack on northern somalia send shock waves of alarm
social security but not the wife of a soldier in afghanistan. that's not such a good idea. maybe we won't pay the veterans benefit. we'll pay the idea. not such a good idea. what about those 12 million to 15 million students head ofd to college in the next few weeks with a student grant or staopbt loan from the federal government?shall we pay those je public colleges take care of their own? you see what can happen if we had a country, especially a country like the united states, which instead of paying all of its obleses on time, whether it is to china or japan or grandma or to the veteran, that we begin to selectively pay those bills when we had the money. i think i know what would happen. instead of being able to borrow money for ten years at 3%, we might have to pay a little more for it. let's say it just went from 3% to 4%, what would mean to us? it would mean, according to the congressional budget office, that the taxpayers would have to pay $1.3 trillion more in interest over ten years. so if it goes up to 5%, that's twice that. or it goes up to 3% -- that's what happens when you
arsenal. the current inventory is getting old and worn down from iraq and afghanistan. some equipment can be refurbished with life extension programs, but there is no getting around the fact that others must be replaced. when it comes to our military modernization accounts, he said the proverbial low-lying or low-hanging fruit, those weapons and other programs considered most questionable have not only been plucked, they have been stomped on and crushed. what remains are much-needed capabilities relating to our air superiority, our mobility, long-range strike, nuclear deterrents, maritime access, space and cyberwarfare, ground forces, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance that our nation's civilian and military leadership deemed absolutely critical. and he gave examples of a new tanker. he noted the ones we have are twice as old as many of the pilots who are flying them. a new generation strike fighter, the f-35. he said we have got to build more ships. the size of the navy has sunk to the lowest number since prior to world war ii. the army and marines, doing the bulk of our fight
down more or less, and native indians in brazil, even in afghanistan, they call the areas where they are doing all the bombing, they are tribal areas, and i wondered if you could just speak to the fact that indigenous people all over the world are under attack, and is there some way that we can get this out into the press so understand that this should be stopped immediately. >> guest: well, what you're saying is true. i was just in norway, and i did a performance with asami person and a woman from india. she's a naga, that's the name of their indigenous nation under attack by the burmese, and i think what it is is there's always the land hunger, the need -- taking over for land, and the indoing nows people are -- indigenous people are vulnerable because they're in isolated areas or places they were sent that suddenly have resources available that others want. for instance, chevron has in, i think, it's costa rica has just covered the people, the land, the water, and the animals in oil so what we think about is the oil in the gulf, but we don't realize that that's happening in o
of the budget have been on the military side as we wage the war mechem iraq and afghanistan and participate in exercises in libya that's an expensive up undertaking. we know that has gone up 84%last military spending in the laste ten years 84%. we know the same purpose of time itat spending on mandatoryur programs wouldy, be like social security, medicare, medicaid,vea payments, spending for those u payments over the last ten years has gone up 32%. and we know that the rest of the budget, the so-called domestic diretionary discretionary spending whichde k would include things likerisons building highways, keepingrants federal prisons open, providings pell grants to college studentsr giving children from poor families early childhood education and for research, that's one section of the budgef that's 12% of the budget and in the last ten years that part of our budget has gone up 0%. no increase in spending in thatf section.g goe most of our spending goes into the military, 84% increase over ten years and mandatory programs for 32% over ten years. federal spending, the thing wef: can't seem t
iraq and afghanistan sooner than many here would like or that the president would like, and save substantial sums if we do that. most certainly if we're going to go forward with shared sacrifice, yes, we do have to ask billions, despite all of their power and all of their campaign contributions and all of their lobbying, maybe the billionaires who are doing phenomenally well may have to contribute to deficit reduction. yes, maybe those companies that stash their money in tax hyphens in pwerpld and the cayman eye hraldz -- in bermuda and the cayman islands, maybe they are going to have to start paying their fair share. on my web site which is sanders.senate.gov, i put a small letter which said to the president, mr. president, stand tall. take on these right-wing ideologues who want to make devastating cuts to working families. and in a couple of weeks we have 135,000 signatures on that letter, and i think that letter reflects what the american people want. they want shared sacrifice. they do not want to see the elderly, the kids or working families being battered more and more, es
-- vietnam, iraq, afghanistan -- is that they are fought mostly by the poor. there are very, very few among the dead and wounded in the those three wars who have been sons or daughters of ceos, senators, members of congress, anything like that. it was the exact opposite in the first world war. the death toll actually fell proportionately higher on the upper classes. and the main reason for that was that it was customary for sons of the upper classes, sons of the air strock rah si to have military careers. and i think a major reason for this is that armies are not only there to fight wars against other countries, they're there to maintain order at home. the 19th century was a very tumultuous time in europe, so was the early 20th century. many of the european armies were used to break strikes or the british army, you know, put down tenant farmer rebellions in ireland. and so, therefore, officering the army was something that was generally reserved for people in the upper classes. this meant that when these countries went to war in 1914, these upper classes suffered an enormous toll. for examp
out to be a disaster and even had negative effects on the war in afghanistan. it was an ill-conceived scheme, so all the resistance that existed in congress and in the american body politic was basically correct. all the people who oppose the war were smart and president bush and his lieutenants were wrong. i want to be very clear here, i do not think president bush and his lieutenants lied for selfish reason. they lied and they took the united states into the war in iraq because they thought it was in the american national interest. they thought they were doing good for america. but the fact is they blew it. they didn't pursue a smart policy and the naysayers had the stronger hand to play and it is just too bad they didn't carry the day. >> host: in 1976 jimmy carter's campaign, i will never lie to you was one of the lines he used. did he live up to that promise? >> guest: no, he told at least one lie that i know of and that is, when it became clear that the iran rescue mission was going to be exposed, he had jody powell who was his press secretary, lie to the news man who
in iraq and afghanistan. >> i speak out against the size of the u.s. military budget. we're spenting like 17 times as much as russia and china, and i think it's crazy. we have troops in 65 countries and bases all over the world. what do you think we are, the british empire 200 years ago? i mean, we don't make money off of that, and then they do better without us there. the last war we won was against japan. [applause] >> i'm it is true, you did speak out on it, but a lot of corporate executives, even when they are retired, not just corporate exec ties, but not one in the last election, i can't remember one other than from ohio -- >> that's your home state. >> i like him. the names are hard to pronounce. [laughter] but i think he was the one who spoke out against the size of the military budget. nobody spoke out against it. it's to the military industrial complex like eisenhower warned years ago has taken over the country basically. >> not just the military budget. you got retired, very wealthy business people. no one's going to be able to do anything to them. >> they got successful becaus
though some would argue that it's the iraq and afghanistan war winddown savings that you would get, but whatever it is, it is larger than the house proposal and use that as the first cut by lifting the debt ceiling. but there would be a sequence of events that would happen after that to avoid what the senate democrats do not want, that the markets and the rating agencies cause the debt instruments, the u.s. treasury bills, to be downgraded, there needs to be certainty for those rating agencies for the united states government debt. and it could be achieved this way. that you have a brac-like committee, that being a committee that would be composed equally of republicans and democrats that would come up with a package that would then come back to each house, no amendments, up-or-down vote. but that the fail-safe backup in case that that committee were not able to come to agreement, or in the event that it came back to both houses and one of the houses did not pass it, that you would then have the mcconnell proposal which is that the president would request the increase of the debt a
proposal. why? well, they say that the savings from winding down the wars in iraq and afghanistan don't count. specifically, they say that these savings are -- quote -- "a widely ridiculed accounting gimmick that breeds cynicism." unquote. yet all but three of the 43 senators who signed this letter voted for the ryan budget on may 25 this year. that budget counted the same drawdowns as almost identical in savings. so those savings were legitimate enough to secure their support for the ryan budget but not legitimate enough to secure their support for leader reid's debt ceiling compromise. and here we are on the precipice, and suddenly they've done a 180-degree turn. either these savings count or they don't. you can't have it both ways. so we are proposing exactly what republicans have been saying that they want. yet instead of accepting this deal, they're using what precious time we have left to push forward with their agenda, and it's not even their agenda. it's the tea party agenda. their radical agenda is a wolf in sheep's clothing. last night we voted down speaker boehner's plan wh
assistance force, isaf, and u.s. forces afghanistan. the president expressed his full confidence in general allen as he begins this important assignment and that he said he looks forward to working closely with him. and with that i will take your questions. >> i want to follow-up on something the president said. he claimed to call speaker boehner and the other leaders after the house vote to resume meetings here, is that right? should we respect resumption a daily meeting? >> no, i think the president will call speaker boehner, based on what he said. he will call the leaders and arrange for a time for a meeting to happen here at the white house. is not a series of meetings budget sometime in the next few days. >> he also made note at the end there that is in progress or agreement with the concept of six or seven senators, how is the white house expects what this again is think to have an impact on the house republican? >> the news from the gang of six/seven italy a significant because it dramatized and reinforces the fact that the only way to deal a significant deficit reduction bill is to
dark. paychecks for troops in afghanistan and iraq and based around the world could stop. f.a.a. towers could shut down. so could the f.b.i. and the c.i.a., border crossings could close, safety inspections of food americans eat and cargo that enters our ports could halt. literally every function of government could cease. social security checks, payments to our veterans. we've heard that before. there would be no discussion of which operations and personnel were essential. all the payments would very likely stop. some have said we could prioritize which bills to pay. even if that wouldn't irreparably damage our nation's reputation and credit in the global economy and the globe at community, which it would, is also a complete fiction. our government won't even be able to cover the bills due on august 3. it will simply run out of money and because we'll be in default and our credit rating trashed, we'll be able to borrow the money not again to keep running, even if we wanted to. that's a picture secretary geithner painted. like i said, it's grim. many of my republican colleagues understan
a war of necessity in afghanistan, keeping us there far longer than necessary, at an additional cost of $430 billion, unpaid for. a total cost for both wars, unpaid for, of $1.2 trillion. the republican party that will not now agree to one penny in revenue and demands only more spending cuts has fought to make tax breaks for the wealthy permanent that would cost this nation another $5 trillion. their favorite big business in wall street and a tax code that has resulted in major multibillion-dollar corporations paying no taxes -- yes, no taxes at all. in fact, a detailed government accountability office study of corporate income taxes from 1998-2005 showed that 55% of large u.s. corporations reported no, no tax liability for at least one of those eight years. yet, those same republicans will look us in the eye in defense of their defenseless position and tell us that most individuals do not pay taxes either. what they will not say is that those individuals who do not pay taxes do not pay taxes for a reason. they do not earn enough to pay income tax, and many of them are among the poor
. even in afghanistan, they call the areas where they're doing all the bombing the tribal areas. and i was wondering if you could just speak to the fact that indigenous people all over the world are under attack. and is there some way we can get this out into the press so they can understand that this should be stopped immediately? >> guest: well, what you're saying was true. i was just in norway and did a performance with a sammi person and a notga woman in india who were under attack by the burmese. and what i think it is there's always the land hunger, the taking over for land. and the indigenous people are vulnerable because they're in isolated areas or they're in places that they were sent that suddenly have resources available that others want, for instance, chevron, you know, has been -- i think it's costa rica has just covered the people of the land, the water and all the animals in oil. and so we think about -- what we think about the oil in the gulf but we don't realize that's happening in our regions as well. so it should be published. it should be in papers. and it's very d
's cuts come from drawing down in afghanistan and in iraq. and while were all like to end these conflicts as soon as we possibly can, and with success, harry reid's saving assuming the cost of the war our endeavor. woman already start to draw down in both of these regions. it's almost like saying that we will save trillions of dollars by promising not to invade canada. it's never going to happen. i can't support any plan that begins with the assumption that we have to raise the debt limit and yet doesn't offer a fundamental restructuring of government spending habits. i won't do it. and while i embrace the principles of cut, cap and balance, the bill simply did not go far enough to fundamentally restructure the way that this city stands the american people's money. and it allowed for an increase in the debt limit, something i simply won't do. i also believe that we must repeal and defund obamnicare as part of any solution to our current debt crisis. by? because obamacare is the largest spending and entitlement program ever passed in our nation's history. and it is widely unpopular with pe
about fraud in afghanistan, iraq, pakistan, and now the congress wants us, after giving away our jobs, not fair trade, free trade agreements -- now they want to go back and give them away with korea. i cannot believe the direction that this country has gone in. we keep talking about corporate tax rates. that is the key word. "rate." they are not paying 35%. they are paying 4%, 6%, 9%, and i am making up the difference. the irs is after a relative of mine who lost their job. they owe them $5,000. karzei and his brother have walked off with billions of dollars and our congress cannot seem to stop it. guest: well,
. and we're fighting these wars, three, $4 billion a week now in iraq, afghanistan. >> i speak out against the size of u.s. military budget. we're spending like 17 times as much as the next two biggest countries, russia and china, and i think it's crazy we have troops in 65 countries and bases all over the world. what do we think we are, the british empire to images ago? we don't make any money off that. and they do better without us there. the last war we won was against japan. [applause] >> okay, peter? i mean, it is true. you do speak out on it, but a lot of corporate executives, even when they are retired, not just corporate executives, congressman and centers, not wondering the last election that i cannot remember one except maybe the one from ohio. >> kucinich. thatcher hosted. they're both from ohio spent his name is hard to pronounce. but i think he was the only one that spoke out against the size of the military budget. nobody spoke out against it. it's true, the military-industrial complex like eisenhower warned us years ago has taken over the country basically spent not just the
to the president of the united states, as an example, we want you to continue to wage war in afghanistan at the cost of $10 billion a month, this president knows that he will have to borrow about $4 billion a month to meet that congressional appropriation. you see, we borrow about 40 cents for every dollar we spend. similarly, when it comes to the payments that we make to our veterans, who are disabled, we have promised them we will pay you, because you served our country and you lost a limb or you were injured and we will compensate you for that loss for the rest of your life. we need in making that commitment that we're also making a commitment to borrow the money necessary to do it. so periodically a president will come to congress and say, i understand our obligations which you have sent to me and i have approved, and now i ask you to extend my authority to borrow the money to meet those obligations. that has happened 89 times since 1939. since we passed this law, presidents of both parties have come to congress and asked for that authority. and aceman as i mentioned, not d congress
bring our combat troops home fromex afghanistan, that we can expect the international community to do more than we can bring about savings on the military side. let me talk about the last major component of the conrad budgetly and how it differs substantially from the ryan budget. not a serious revenues. i know there's been a lot of so discussion about revenues. so what does the democratic budget due in this regard? it takes i revenues to 19.5% of our gross domestic product, gdp. mr. president, that is t phe sae amount of us raised on the clinton presidency when we had unprecedented prosperity and jow growth in america. now, how do wehe get there? how do we get the revenues that we need in order to be able to h bring this debt under control? well, senator conrad has given us some direction on how we canr do that. he has pointed out that sheltere and loopholes need to be closede these are inefficiencies in our kax code today. tal i take the floor on two occasions recently to talk aboue some that i think we shouldat eliminate pier one, the ethanole subsidy.ubsidy. the majority of the se
's why. how many wars are we fighting now? let's name them. afghanistan, iraq, pakistan, libya, and soon as mr. leon panetta says, we'll be fighting in iran. we have military operations all over the middle east. why can't we divert some of those funds, cut some of those wars and not cut social security because social security never impacted on our debt. social security was funded all along so why are we cutting social security? >> guest: well, let me just assure you we are not going to cut social security, okay? i think there might be efforts in the house to cut social security, and it might possibly pass, although i certainly know that the cut cap and whatever it's called won't pass because it requires a two-thirds vote and you need 50 democrats to vote for it, and i don't believe we'll have 50 democrats to vote for it, but i guarantee you if any measure passed the house of social security, it would not be taken up in the senate, and if it did, i believe the president would veto it. you know, you're a retiree, paid into social security, all of your working life, and you deserve to conti
of the media and of parliament to acknowledge currently we have soldiers fighting in afghanistan and war and people don't seem to forget that, so i would not say any primm minister would think the sun was and fighting for the right people. they continue to fight for the right people. >> how often would those primm investors ask you as a chief executive how wasden, or would they ever ask you not to publish a story? what they sort of ask you to spike the story? with that happen? >> i can't remember an occasion where a prime minister asked. >> politicians generally, is that something that would happen? >> nope. i would say i can remember many occasions when the cabinet member, politician or prime minister was very happy with of the stories we were running but not that they had ever pleaded directly. >> and if they had you wouldn't had been interested in a way. >> as long as the story was true and accurate it was part of the campaign know, there was no reason for prime minister. that is exactly why we have a free press. >> my final question, there's a sort of i think feeling that in some way
with afghanistan, and over the years the number has gone up steadily. in the first few years in the strikes of 2,042,007 they're just a handful and then we see it going up in 2010. the obama administration rising at a policy never fully publicly articulated. 118 strikes last year and 45 so far this year. the pakistanis said a couple of months ago that they wanted him stopped them stopped and they ordered the cia out in their base in pakistan were some of the strikes are being launched. by my reckoning there is than a dozen since then. so has this been done like the enlightened raid against the will of the pakistan government? put the whole thing in a different legal contextualization. we don't know that for sure but we know the americans are defensive about in last month for example john brennan tried to relay concerns he took to new targeting procedure and he said that in the past year there hasn't been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency precision of the capabilities we have been able to develop. in other words because they have been checking much more carefully th
on what i think is a classic american problem. i mean, we're not talking about the war in afghanistan, we're not talking about raising the debt ceiling. i grant that. but we are talking about something, which is profoundly troubling and disturbing to millions of americans. and it's also necessary. i mean, i thought we were going to do was clear problems here. and 10 years ago the telephone entity came to us two essences for clear problems because they make us look bad if we don't end there you can trust us to do it and they did it. so while i am saying is we are going to stick with this. the sec stated yesterday is now seeking comment on third party billing and i appreciate that. and don't they have settlements, the ftc, but that is all stuff that is already john and also as a mission of guilt. if you settle something, it's a mission of guilt. i'm not a lawyer. i want you to know that, but that's the way i read it. so anyway, in the near future, i plan to introduce working with colleagues from both sides of the aisle, legislation that will put a staff to this because i simply cannot find
be directly affected by a government default. paychecks for soldiers, in afghanistan and iraq and at bases around the world conceivably wouldn't go out. f.a.a. towers could shut down. border crossings could close. operations at the f.b.i. and the c.i.a. would be put at risk. safety inspections of the food that we eat and the cargo that enters our ports could halt. and the resulting spike in interest rates would ironically make our debt even harder to tackle because each 1% rise in interest rates alone would result in $130 billion in increased interest payments on our national debt each year. perhaps, most importantly, hard-working american families would also feel the crunch. a spike in interest rates would effectively force a tax on all americans and american businesses due to increased consumer costs. just as important, failure to raise the debt limit would lock up credit markets because the u.s. would no longer be seen as a reliable credit risk. coincidentally, mr. president, yesterday an important consumer protection law which senator lugar and i introduced and passed and you helped us
with bills and insurance companies. soldiers, in too many cases returning from iraq and afghanistan, are facing even greater challenges in the working market. i was at youngstown university talking, there are programs there, there's a group through magnet in youngstown in northeast ohio about putting -- getting -- helping soldiers and sailors and marines leaving the service, integrating into the classroom and helping them find jobs in that region, someplace we've fallen woefully short. manufacturing, which was moving along steadily earlier this year, we had seen 12, 13, 14, 15 months of job growth in manufacturing, not enough job growth but some, that's even slowing down. steps taken through the auto rescue and other things we did in the last couple of years dealing with this terrible, terrible recession created in 2007 and 2008 the auto rescue saved millions -- auto rescue and other efforts saved millions of americans from joining the unemployment rolls and we're seeing a better auto industry, an auto industry coming back, especially in places like defiance and toledo and northwood
spending at all levels, including the military, as we bring our troops home from afghanistan. and, yes, it needs to look at the money that we spend through our tax code -- and we've talked about this over and over again. we need to have a balanced approach, a credible approach to manage our debt. and that should be our first option. but under no circumstances should we allow america to default on its obligations, causing harm to every american family. i urge-colleagues to put the national -- i urge my colleagues to put the national interests first, to take off the table the default on our debt, take that off the table, let's put the national interest first, work together to bring about a credible plan to manage our national debt. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and suggest the an -- before i do that, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
and negative impact with few options to detain terrace outside of afghanistan progress read drawn down there we will lose the option. i am sure you seen press story saying the united states may kill the terrace but not trying ferry hard to ras ure them. lothtion becauseb it has been taken offt the table and this is why end of the best ways to get to intelligence and prevent future threats. so we congratulate you on your nomination and these issues need to be laid on the table and flush out the ku saysco it will be you. so many instances we need too>> certainly have that feeling of trust that we have developed and need to develop stronger over the coming years while you were in this position. >> thank you mr. vice-chairman now i will recognize the distinguished senator from north dakota on that democratic side, it can conrad. >> thank you. u, thank you vice-chairman and senator senators, i am delighted to be introducing match olson. parents are from northh dakota and people who might have known for a very long time.ti by his roots are deep and returns every chance he gets with hisdak family and
to pakistan? and afghanistan? why send all of that money over there? get our troops out of all of these other countries that we need them in. germany and philippines and all of the other places anymore. >> host: here's leslie -- excuse me, tammy in leslie, kentucky. >> caller: yes, they need to bring our troops home and stop spending the millions of billions. they need to help out the people on social security. it's hard to make it especially when you have a family. >> host: florida, linda on the independent line. where do things stand with the debt and deficit negotiations? >> caller: i think personally it's all bull crap. you've got people that is -- has been on the social security because they are either disabled or whatever. bring our troops home. we don't need to support pakistan. look what they did to us, we don't need to support iran. bring us home. get us out of that situation. we have people out here that fought for the country. now they are going to suffer because he wants to cut back the social security, medicare, and medicaid? that's nuts. i think just bring our people home. start
american problem. we are not talking about the war in afghanistan or raising the debt ceiling i grant that. but we are talking about something which is profoundly troubling and disturbing to millions of americans and it is also on necessary. i thought what we were meant to do is try to clear up problems here, and ten years ago they came to us and said we will clear of the problems because they make us look bad if we don't and therefore you could trust us to do it and they did so all i'm saying is we are going to stick with this. the sec stated yesterday it is seeking comment on whether a band third party billing appreciate that and they settle things, the have settlements and the ftc and that is stuff that is already done and is the mission of guilt. general madigan i want you to know that that's the way i read at the rate in the near future i plan to introduce working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. the legislation that would put a stop to this because i simply cannot find any grain of sense to us having to have a hearing like this and have -- i'm sorry you haven't got any eno
the following. you could eliminate all the bush/obama tax cuts. you could pull out of iraq, afghanistan and southwest asia tomorrow. you could end up eliminating all congressional earmarks and you could eliminate all foreign aid which people think is a big number but it's not, that's about 15 to 20% of the problem. the government has grown too big, promised too much, waited too long to restructure. yes, we're going to have to have more revenues as compared to historical levels but we need to go about it in an intelligent way that will make our system fairer, more equitable, more comparative and it will promote job growth and promote innovation. last i think this, on the comeback america initiative, preemptive framework, there's an additional $500 billion for critical investments over the next two years in order to help the economic recovery and to deal with unemployment. nonetheless, the net spending reductions over the next 10 years are over 3 trillion. so, yes, we need to do some things to make sure we recover and get unemployment down but if we don't end up putting our finances in or
currently we have soldiers fighting in afghanistan and people don't seem to forget that. i would not say any prime minister is not fighting for the right people. continues to fight for the right people. >> how would any of those prime ministers ask as editor or chief executive how often or would they ever ask you not to publish a story? would they ask you to spike a story? would that happen? >> i can't remember an occasion of prime minister asked that. >> politicians generally do that? >> no. i can remember many occasions when a cabinet minister or politician or prime minister was very unhappy with stories we were running and -- not that they would ask us not to. >> if they had you would have been interested anyway? >> if the story was true and accurate, no reason for a prime minister -- that is why we have a free press. >> final question. still a feeling that in some way you had a close relationship with the prime minister. the allegation seems to be is no different -- the benefit of what people need to see. you have a close relationship with the prime minister. that was helpful to him and
and afghanistan, saving $1 trillion in the process. our troops in the middle east deserve our admiration and praise for so successfully carrying out their missions. we must, however, continue to press for a strategy that will bring our troops home as soon as we safely can. the reid deficit plan would find an additional $40 billion in savings by cutting fraud and abuse in tax compliance and a number of non-defense federal programs and $60 billion in other savings, including cutting unnecessary spending on agricultural subsidies and auctioning off electromagnetic spectrum that the government currently holds. finally, by cutting the government by over $2 trillion, we'll have to borrow less money than anticipated and that will save an additional $400 million -- sorry, $400 billion in projected interest costs. in total, the senate democratic plan on which we will vote would cut the deficits by $2.7 trillion over the next ten years. while senator reid's proposal would not address the tax gimmicks and loopholes throughout our tax code that help favor the well-connected, this omission does not m
raging abroad in iraq and afghanistan, also unpaid for. and a new entitlement program passed in the past congress unpaid for. and a wall street that instead of being a free market was a free-for-all market. you put that all together and that's what we're coming out of. so i'm wondering, you know, your answer to me suggests that there isn't anymore monetary policy that is going to come forward that could in essence seek a more faster, more robust recovery with a greater job growth? >> well, as i said in my, in my testimony, we, given that there's a lot of uncertainty how the economy will evolve, we have to keep all options, both for tightening and for easing on the table. we're doing that. but, again, we are already providing an exceptional amount of accommodation and, as you know, recovery is still pretty slow. >> now i want to turn to the question of the debt ceiling. i know you discussed that quite a bit. i find it interesting under president bush's years, he raised the debt ceiling to the tune of about $5.4 trillion, during his period of time. i didn't hear the same comments then that
be captured outside of afghanistan. as director of nctc, you will be integrally involved in deliberations relative to any proposal for a long-term plan on detention and interrogation and my question to you is, are you prepared to give sound advice, number one, that you are going to be asked to give and secondly, if the administration appears to be headed down a road that you don't think is the right direction to go, will you say to this committee now that you are going to express yourself in a very strong manner to help to try to develop the best possible policy for detention and interrogation of high-value targets even though your opinion may be contrary to the folks at the white house who are nominating you today? >> yes, absolutely and if i may, i do make that pledge. i think in my prior position, i had taken a position. in other words i have given advice in an unvarnished, objective independent way as a career government official. i've made known my personal views and sought to move positions based on my objective and independent and nonpolitical perspective. i do think that these que
afghanistan and iraq is just not credible. we don't know what the obstacles are going to be in afghanistan and possibly iraq. we also don't know what we might have to do in the middle east going forward. afghanistan is not settled, mr. president, and we have to have a certain level of stability on the ground in afghanistan or we will have wasted the billions that we have already spent and the lives of our military personnel in afghanistan because it will go back to the way it was before, a center for terrorism that will come to our country or can come to our country. it did once already and we have been over there to try to wipe out al qaeda and the taliban, which has been in league with al qaeda. we have been over there losing american lives and spending american taxpayer dollars to protect our country from another 9/11. to say that we're going to cut $1 trillion in the future over the next ten years when we aren't placing the emphasis on what are the conditions on the ground is not sound policy and it's certainly not sound national security policy. so that's illusory. and then the other
-- the senate plan's $1 trillion in savings from the iraq and afghanistan wars are real. that's c.b.o. saying it. not some democrat who's hoping and praying for an easy fix. this completely undercuts the arguments by republicans who have tried to call these savings a gimmick, even though they included them in their own budget and voted for them only a few months ago. if it was knock their budget -- if it was okay in their budget, it's got to be okay in our budget. you can't just change your mind based on whose budget it is. the substance should matter to some extent. plus, since the c.b.o. will only measure the plan's first draft before aofficial plan savings were incorporated into the bill, the final version will achieve even deeper savings when it is filed on the floor. as "politico" reports this morning, "in the battle of budget scores, the senate democratic deficit-reduction bill is the clear winner thus far over an alternative by speaker john boehner." and lastly, senator reid's proposal allows for a joint committee that has the potential to achieve even deeper savings down the road to get
voting, for example, on the war in afghanistan, they are committing the united states of america to spending spending $10 billion a month in defense of our men and women in uniform, members of our family who are over there waging this war. they voted for that. now president obama has said to them the bill's coming in for the war in afghanistan, i have to borrow money to pay for it. and these same members of congress, house and senate, who voted for the war in afghanistan are now saying we won't pay the bills, we won't extend the debt ceiling, we won't allow you, mr. president, to borrow the money to sustain our military forces in afghanistan. that is literally what we're talking about here in this debate. the american people are starting to come to understand it because when you first ask a person do you want to extend the debt ceiling, the obvious answer is no, are you crazy, senator? why would i want more debt in this country? we need less debt, not more. don't you get it? understandably, that's the public reaction, but when you go to the point of explaining that this is to pay
money, a good bit of money. over the entire decade, the cost of afghanistan and iraq wars is about $1.3 trillion. and that is a lot of money. again, that's over ten years, over a decade. this year alone, the deficit is expected to be $1.4 trillion. the deficit this year will be larger than the cost of the iraq and afghanistan wars over ten years. the driving force behind our deficit is not the wars in iraq and afghanistan. it's just not. war costs represent only 4% of total outlays over the last ten years. the total amount of money spent since president obama took office is $8.5 trillion. by the end of his first three years in office, we will have added $5 interest to our gross federal deficit. these are stunning numbers. bush had a widely criticized $450 billion deficit. since president obama has been in ofsz the deficits -- in office the deficit looks like it will be $1.5 trillion. we are borrowing too close to half of what we're spending every single day. in the last few years, discretionary spending, non-defense discretionary spending in the last two years increased 24%. 12% a yea
're putting money in other places like to the war, places like that in afghanistan, to other wars. that is my question. guest: two interesting things your question brings up. when fdr designed so security, he said, we're going to put it on your checks every week so you will see it being taken out and you will note it is there for you. that was very, very important to fdr and the preservation of the social safety net. also, he said, we are going to make sure that every time -- that you know this is something that is solvent, but the money is there in the bank so it is not a welfare program but it should not be means tested. we all know what happens to welfare programs. we all know they go under the knife. he said it had to apply to everyone. that is one of the things they want to attack at this point, too. you may say, well, the wealthy should not because it is in financial trouble. it is not. the minute you make of a welfare program, the death warrant. host: we have heard recruitment efforts will be hurt by any perceived abandonment in the area of medicare by democratic leaders. your thoughts
abroad in iraq and afghanistan and new entitlement program unpaid for, and a marketplace that instead of being a free market, which i support, became a free-for-all market in which investor decisions end up becoming collective risks to the entire country. and that's what we have been facing. instead of meeting this responsibility, they favor cuts in entitlements to seniors, to the disabled, the families struggling to make ends meet, to students seeking to get the college education that can help fuel america's prosperity. that's what we saw in the house republican budget that passed. but are willing to decimate our nation's economy to protect entitlements for the rich. they've dug in their heels and walled off irresponsible, unnecessary tax breaks for big oil companies. they've walled off entitlements to multibillion-dollar corporations and millionaires who need no entitlements because they believe, blinded by their ideological haze, that the rich are entitleed to their outrageous ways even if it means ballooning the deficit and sending the nation into default on its debt. entitlements
of the money that we are going to save by not continuing operations and iraq and afghanistan for the next ten years at their current level. that that was also in the rhine and budget. as it turns out, the rise in budget receives $2.2 trillion in savings without using that accounting gimmick triet compared to the president's 2011 number, the ryan budget saves $6.2 trillion without using that accounting gimmick. with the ryan budget does -- if you look through the various charts and pages of it -- it also has various comparisons, including pretty much the obligatory comparison to what is called the current law budget that cbo scores, and in that he compared because that's what cbo does the oco cost for the overseas contingency operation cost, but he did not utilize that in order to achieve the savings in his budget. so i had made the same mistakes others had in assuming what we were told was correct. paul ryan made it clear no, that wasn't correct. when we criticized the bill that the majority leader has brought up for use in over a trillion dollars in savings from that oco account, i think we
of ours in afghanistan and in other trouble spots across the globe. that's personally important to me because 100 years ago this year my grandfather immigrated from crow shay to this country, john begich. then it was spelled p-e-c-g-i-c. he left his farmer and eventually settled in northern minnesota in the iron range. he and his young bride anna had four children, their youngest nikolas, made his way to america's new frontier, alaska, even before we were a staivment he was my father. nick was an educator and eventually was elected alaska's lone member of the united states house of representatives in 1970. i'm honored to follow in his footsteps as a member of the senate, where i'm the only member of croatian dissent. my recent visit was my first to croatia. i was honored to represent the body at the summit along with officials from the state department and u.s. embassy. i was impressed by the great progress under way there as well as the excellent job being performed by our embassy personnel. there are enormous opportunities for partnership between the united states and croatia and i
Search Results 88 to 145 of about 146 (some duplicates have been removed)